In some ways, Dr. Wai Chee Dimok’s lecture reminded me of a previous talk in the series, Dr. Hensley’s lecture on the parallels between the transitionary periods of the beginning and end of the Industrial Revolution, and therefore climate change, through the lens of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Both talks made the extremely interesting connection between the literary and scientific worlds. I was fascinated by this lecture’s comparison between Bishop and Blake, and how selected works by those two poets could represent a tension between different frames of mind concerning knowledge, much in the same way Hensley compared Carroll’s work to modern attitudes.
Dr. Cook neatly summed up the two attitudes this lecture explored in her question about that tension, as “the need to know” and “future facing vulnerability.” Dr. Wai Chee Dimok purported Blake’s confident attitude in his “Auguries of Innocence” as one that claimed to fully understand the world, to the point that the speaker felt comfortable reducing the whole universe to a microcosm that fit in his palm. I think I can make the connection, then, that in this instant Blake could stand for “the need to know.” That leaves Bishop to be the one who faces the future with vulnerability. This seems entirely appropriate to me, given the overall fear and definite lack of confidence displayed in Bishop’s poem, “The Sandpiper.”
The main point of the lecture was to focus on non-intentional logic that aligns these old poets and their focus on nature with modern scientific logic about environmental issues. The uncertainty and feeling of insignificance in Bishop’s “The Sandpiper” is reframed in a more urgent manner, considering the modern problem of ocean acidification and the decrease in viable food options for the eponymous bird. Blake’s long list of animals in “Auguries of Innocence” proclaim a very emotional diatribe against those who abuse animals and nature, which aligns with modern research into the huge environmental damage caused by the capitalist meat market in America.
One audience member questioned why it is that even with overwhelming and ever-increasing evidence to the contrary, many people just cannot seem to engage with the fact that climate change is real and happening right now, and is largely caused by reversible human actions. Dr. Wai Chee Dimok posited that this is because science can be hard to grasp or connect with for many people who do not want to spend lots of time doing their own research. So, this lecture was the suggestion that it is time for science and the humanities to collaborate. If science can inform and educate with objective, tested facts and statistics, then the humanities can go on to do what it does best; that is, to craft words into feelings and create a means through which to convey emotions. Already this purported non-human movement is shifting writers to come to the same conclusions as hard scientific fact, if not for the same reason. If the bridge could be made between these two fields of studies, then together they could form a full picture and maybe create a more definite impact and a plan of action moving forward in the coming catastrophe of climate change.